Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[LTA1992]

The article fails to say when the people who failed actually did the drugs and/or alcohol though. If it's at home, then it won't affect their work. I mean, some drugs can stay in your system for months. It also fails to mention how many were caught for which. It fails to mention how many were caught doing it on the job.

 

This article fails at a lot of things. All it's done is remind me why I stay away from the tabloids.

[Daniel The Cool]

I don't even think its lies because if thats the case why did the investigation became based on this incident back in February

http://abc7ny.com/news/investigators-exclusive-construction-workers-caught-drinking-heavily-during-lunch/1224994/

[LTA1992]

I never said it's lies. I said that it fails to mention a lot of things. refer to the facebook post I replied in for my second set of reasonings. The article you and this article links to is irrelevant to the current situation. Completely.

 

Critical Thinking/Philosophy 101.

[Q43LTD]

Anybody think the 55 St station on the SAS should be split?

[Around the Horn]

Anybody think the 55 St station on the SAS should be split?

No if there are exits to 57 Street on the north and 53 Street on the south.

 

If that is not the case, I'd rather have a 60 Street(or 57 Street-the naming could go either way) station with exits at 60th and 57th Streets and a 50 Street (or 53rd Street-the naming could go either way) station with exits at 50th and 53rd Streets

[Caelestor]

No if there are exits to 57 Street on the north and 53 Street on the south.

 

If that is not the case, I'd rather have a 60 Street(or 57 Street-the naming could go either way) station with exits at 60th and 57th Streets and a 50 Street (or 53rd Street-the naming could go either way) station with exits at 50th and 53rd Streets

 

The 55 St location is situated to avoid too much complex construction over the 53 and 59 St lines. More specifically for Phase 3:

• 55 St, aka Midtown North: Additional exit on 57 St, tentative but likely transfer to the at 53rd St. 
• 42 St, aka Midtown South: Additional exit on 44/45 St, tentative but likely transfer to the at GCT.
• 34 St.
• 23 St: Additional exit at 26 St.
• 14 St: Additional exit at 12 St, transfer to the at 3rd Ave.
• Houston St: Additional exist at 3 St, transfer to the at 2nd Ave.

Essentially, the maximum distance between station entrances is 8-9 blocks.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Caelestor

[Union Tpke]

No if there are exits to 57 Street on the north and 53 Street on the south.

 

If that is not the case, I'd rather have a 60 Street(or 57 Street-the naming could go either way) station with exits at 60th and 57th Streets and a 50 Street (or 53rd Street-the naming could go either way) station with exits at 50th and 53rd Streets

 

I'd prefer the latter as transfers could then be provided to the F, 4, 5, 6, N, Q and R at 59/63, and at to the 6, E and M at 50th.

[bobtehpanda]

There isn't really a point to a transfer at 60th anyways. Anyone who wants the Broadway Line can take the , and anyone from Astoria is probably going to transfer to the Lex anyway since the Lex-59 transfer is so easy.

[pitchblende]

Is this still an accurate depiction of the 2nd Ave tracks that are planned?

 

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/2ave-tr.gif

[MysteriousBtrain]

Is this still an accurate depiction of the 2nd Ave tracks that are planned?

 

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/2ave-tr.gif

Not even close. Edited March 27, 2016 by MysteriousBtrain

[Union Tpke]

Not even close.

 

sadly

[Mysterious2train]

Is this still an accurate depiction of the 2nd Ave tracks that are planned?

 

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/2ave-tr.gif

 

Absolutely not. That map on nycsubway.org depicts the route planned in the 1970s. 

 

The most recent track maps for the current project come from the MTA's site, originally published as part of the project's final environmental impact statement (FEIS) back in 2004. Here's the link to the track maps: upper half and lower half. (For whatever reason the track map is split into two parts). Although, I have to point out this track map is also partially outdated since 72nd St was built with only 2 tracks, and this shows it with 3 tracks, as originally planned. (Keep in mind it is from 2004). Besides the 72 St area, these track maps show the most recent design that the MTA has publicly shown. Of course, more elements of the track layout could change as the MTA updates its designs for the latter phases.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d9ZK9TJxifE/TjFfHidpv1I/AAAAAAAAFEU/ujI7GljNhr0/s1600/72nd%2BStreet%2BStation.jpg

This link shows what the track layout around 72 St actually looks like (with only 2 tracks).

 

I also tried to draw the actual track layout of 72 St in the style of the track maps:

http://imgur.com/MEsEcM0

Edited March 27, 2016 by Mysterious2train

[Around the Horn]

Absolutely not. That map on nycsubway.org depicts the route planned in the 1970s. 

 

The most recent track maps for the current project come from the MTA's site, originally published as part of the project's final environmental impact statement (FEIS) back in 2004. Here's the link to the track maps: upper half and lower half. (For whatever reason the track map is split into two parts). Although, I have to point out this track map is also partially outdated since 72nd St was built with only 2 tracks, and this shows it with 3 tracks, as originally planned. (Keep in mind it is from 2004). Besides the 72 St area, these track maps show the most recent design that the MTA has publicly shown. Of course, more elements of the track layout could change as the MTA updates its designs for the latter phases.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d9ZK9TJxifE/TjFfHidpv1I/AAAAAAAAFEU/ujI7GljNhr0/s1600/72nd%2BStreet%2BStation.jpg

This link shows what the track layout around 72 St actually looks like (with only 2 tracks).

 

I also tried to draw the actual track layout of 72 St in the style of the track maps:

http://imgur.com/MEsEcM0

Figure 2-1 shows an interesting version of the subway map(http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/feis/figure2-01.pdf).

 

Take a look at the area around the Manhattan Bridge/Grand St...

 

Also I'm hoping for a connection between the and the north side of the Bridge.

It gives both the and by extension, the alternate routes in case of disruptions:

: via 2nd Avenue lower (south of 63rd) and Bridge in case of disruption on Broadway

: via Bridge to Brooklyn in case of disruption south of Grand St

: via Bridge, 2nd Av and connection to 63 Street in case of disruptions on Broadway and 6 Av

[pjbr40]

I noticed there a huge gap in station stops between 72 and 55 street.

Also i think it would be good idea to connect the tunnel south of hanover to the J or R in case of mishap somewhere. 

[Wallyhorse]

I noticed there a huge gap in station stops between 72 and 55 street.

Also i think it would be good idea to connect the tunnel south of hanover to the J or R in case of mishap somewhere. 

My plan there (as noted before) if it got south of Hanover would be a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would connect the to the Fulton Street line.  That would allow the and to both be express on Fulton as the could be the Fulton local to Euclid Avenue.  That also would eliminate the merge/unmerge at Hoyt-Schermerhorn since the would come in on the as-present unused platform there (after first stopping at what is currently the Transit Museum that would be converted back into the Court Street station it was originally).

[Lance]

Figure 2-1 shows an interesting version of the subway map(http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/feis/figure2-01.pdf).

 

Take a look at the area around the Manhattan Bridge/Grand St...

 

Also I'm hoping for a connection between the and the north side of the Bridge.

It gives both the and by extension, the alternate routes in case of disruptions:

: via 2nd Avenue lower (south of 63rd) and Bridge in case of disruption on Broadway

: via Bridge to Brooklyn in case of disruption south of Grand St

: via Bridge, 2nd Av and connection to 63 Street in case of disruptions on Broadway and 6 Av

All this depends on whether they build the 2nd Avenue line at the same level as the Chrystie St connection. While subject to change, current consensus is that the MTA plans to build the line below the current Grand St station, eliminating any potential of any track connection to the Manhattan Bridge.

 

I noticed there a huge gap in station stops between 72 and 55 street.

Also i think it would be good idea to connect the tunnel south of hanover to the J or R in case of mishap somewhere. 

There are two reasons why there is such a large gap between the two stations. First and foremost, the entire line has been designed as the poor-man's express with a reduction in the number of stops overall. Secondly, take a look at what the 2nd Avenue has to cross under in order to get to 55th Street. The tunnels will have to cross the tri-level 63rd Street tunnels (bi-level subway, and the LIRR) and the 60th Street tunnels before getting any real room for a station. Then there are the connections to the 63rd Street line, both from Broadway/6th Ave and from Queens Blvd, which are in the way or any intermediate station placement.

 

The way I see it, the furthest they could put the station is at 57th Street.

 

In order to run through the Montague tunnels from Hanover Sq, the tunnels would have to dip under the portals for the Clark St tubes and then cut a ninety degree left turn to merge with the Nassau St connection. And none of that takes into consideration what else is under those streets.

[Caelestor]

All this depends on whether they build the 2nd Avenue line at the same level as the Chrystie St connection. While subject to change, current consensus is that the MTA plans to build the line below the current Grand St station, eliminating any potential of any track connection to the Manhattan Bridge.

 

From a technical standpoint, creating a 2-platform station with cross-platform transfers and crossovers north of the station would probably be cheaper and allow for more flexible reroutes during construction reroutes and emergencies. The downside, of course, is that Chrystie St will basically have to be shut down completely, and the local shops will probably not allow for this.

 

There are two reasons why there is such a large gap between the two stations. First and foremost, the entire line has been designed as the poor-man's express with a reduction in the number of stops overall. Secondly, take a look at what the 2nd Avenue has to cross under in order to get to 55th Street. The tunnels will have to cross the tri-level 63rd Street tunnels (bi-level subway, and the LIRR) and the 60th Street tunnels before getting any real room for a station. Then there are the connections to the 63rd Street line, both from Broadway/6th Ave and from Queens Blvd, which are in the way or any intermediate station placement.

 

The way I see it, the furthest they could put the station is at 57th Street.

 

The SAS is less a NYC-style 4-track trunk line with express and local service, and more a WMATA-style line. Nowadays, stations are too expensive to construct due to various factors, so they're typically double-ended with exits at both ends of the platform. This speeds up construction and allows for faster service with fewer stops. The existing plan is still better than the 1970s plan, which had even fewer stations than proposed today.

 

The station at 55 St is effectively a 57 St stop, since there will be an exit to the latter at the northern end.

 

In order to run through the Montague tunnels from Hanover Sq, the tunnels would have to dip under the portals for the Clark St tubes and then cut a ninety degree left turn to merge with the Nassau St connection. And none of that takes into consideration what else is under those streets.

 

I also don't think it's possible to connect Hanover Sq with the tunnels either. The only way SAS will ever go into Brooklyn via Downtown is if it connects with the Nassau St line somewhere north of Fulton St, since I strongly doubt another tunnel will be built between Brooklyn and Manhattan. As a side note, I can't imagine Phase 4 will ever be built as currently proposed, since it offers very little utility for the cost.

[MysteriousBtrain]

From a technical standpoint, creating a 2-platform station with cross-platform transfers and crossovers north of the station would probably be cheaper and allow for more flexible reroutes during construction reroutes and emergencies. The downside, of course, is that Chrystie St will basically have to be shut down completely, and the local shops will probably not allow for this.

There is only one way to have Grand St close in a minimal way, and all I need to say is that in involves the . We know how it goes:

between 34 St and 145 St/Bedford Pk Blvd middays and rush hours.

between Norwood and 34 St.

diamond service returns.

express between Astoria and Coney Island, late nights to 36 St.

But again, there would likely be opposition with the shops and residents nearby.

[Around the Horn]

All this depends on whether they build the 2nd Avenue line at the same level as the Chrystie St connection. While subject to change, current consensus is that the MTA plans to build the line below the current Grand St station, eliminating any potential of any track connection to the Manhattan Bridge.

You could still have a connection there. You just wouldn't be able to stop at Grand St.

[Caelestor]

There is only one way to have Grand St close in a minimal way, and all I need to say is that in involves the . We know how it goes:

between 34 St and 145 St/Bedford Pk Blvd middays and rush hours.

between Norwood and 34 St.

diamond service returns.

express between Astoria and Coney Island, late nights to 36 St.

But again, there would likely be opposition with the shops and residents nearby.

 

I actually don't think Grand St station itself will need to be closed - Lex / 63 station has remained open during the SAS construction. The issue is that building SAS at the same level as the 6 Av express tracks will require cut-and-cover, causing a situation similar to the 1960s where 7 blocks of Chrystie St were completely shut down for 2 years.

 

Of course, with enough compensation, the locals might acquiesce?

[Lance]

From a technical standpoint, creating a 2-platform station with cross-platform transfers and crossovers north of the station would probably be cheaper and allow for more flexible reroutes during construction reroutes and emergencies. The downside, of course, is that Chrystie St will basically have to be shut down completely, and the local shops will probably not allow for this.

 

 

The SAS is less a NYC-style 4-track trunk line with express and local service, and more a WMATA-style line. Nowadays, stations are too expensive to construct due to various factors, so they're typically double-ended with exits at both ends of the platform. This speeds up construction and allows for faster service with fewer stops. The existing plan is still better than the 1970s plan, which had even fewer stations than proposed today.

 

The station at 55 St is effectively a 57 St stop, since there will be an exit to the latter at the northern end.

 

 

I also don't think it's possible to connect Hanover Sq with the tunnels either. The only way SAS will ever go into Brooklyn via Downtown is if it connects with the Nassau St line somewhere north of Fulton St, since I strongly doubt another tunnel will be built between Brooklyn and Manhattan. As a side note, I can't imagine Phase 4 will ever be built as currently proposed, since it offers very little utility for the cost.

I agree with you there on the point of a same-level Grand St station. The MTA however doesn't. Regarding any hypothetical closures, it wouldn't be just the Grand St station, but the Nassau St line as well since the line crosses the Chrystie St connection along Delancey St.

 

There is only one way to have Grand St close in a minimal way, and all I need to say is that in involves the . We know how it goes:

between 34 St and 145 St/Bedford Pk Blvd middays and rush hours.

between Norwood and 34 St.

diamond service returns.

express between Astoria and Coney Island, late nights to 36 St.

But again, there would likely be opposition with the shops and residents nearby.

So, basically, 2001-04 Manhattan Bridge closure. Except without the Grand St shuttle.

 

You could still have a connection there. You just wouldn't be able to stop at Grand St.

Based on current plans for the 2nd Avenue line, from the Houston St station, the tunnels will curve slightly east while diving down to avoid the 6th Avenue-Jamaica connection tracks and dip down to a deeper level to hit Grand St. Mind you, immediately after the 6th Avenue tracks leave Grand St, they turn east for the north tracks of the Manhattan Bridge. Also keep in mind that Chrystie St is not that long. While it's probably not impossible to build a connection between 2nd Avenue and the bridge, it would be an engineering headache to make such a connection, not to mention the hairpin turns required for said connection

 

I actually don't think Grand St station itself will need to be closed - Lex / 63 station has remained open during the SAS construction. The issue is that building SAS at the same level as the 6 Av express tracks will require cut-and-cover, causing a situation similar to the 1960s where 7 blocks of Chrystie St were completely shut down for 2 years.

 

Of course, with enough compensation, the locals might acquiesce?

Unless a switch is installed at or near Grand St, no non-shuttle service can efficiently run through Grand St. That's why the Grand St shuttle has usually been a single-track operation.

[RailRunRob]

4 Tracks on Chrystie seems abit tight especially for a same level station. I mean she's no Bowery... The building line would be awfully close. Ultimately if they decided to alter Phase 4 and tie into the Nassua street Line persay which I think was the talk around town it's possible Grand maybe skipped together no? Depending on where they tied in either at Delancey probably the most cost-effective, maybe the severed tie on the Southside of the Manhattan Bridge curve under and connect there? The Echo Vault(SAS section) is in this general vicinity Confucius Plaza I'm not sure of the orientation but could this be used? Also are all the Brooklyn crossings at capacity? What about the Montague tubes?

 

 

Echo Vault

 

http://gothamist.com/2013/06/24/photos_illegal_party_in_an_abandone.php#photo-1

Edited March 28, 2016 by RailRunRob

[bobtehpanda]

From a technical standpoint, creating a 2-platform station with cross-platform transfers and crossovers north of the station would probably be cheaper and allow for more flexible reroutes during construction reroutes and emergencies. The downside, of course, is that Chrystie St will basically have to be shut down completely, and the local shops will probably not allow for this.

 

 

The SAS is less a NYC-style 4-track trunk line with express and local service, and more a WMATA-style line. Nowadays, stations are too expensive to construct due to various factors, so they're typically double-ended with exits at both ends of the platform. This speeds up construction and allows for faster service with fewer stops. The existing plan is still better than the 1970s plan, which had even fewer stations than proposed today.

 

The station at 55 St is effectively a 57 St stop, since there will be an exit to the latter at the northern end.

 

 

I also don't think it's possible to connect Hanover Sq with the tunnels either. The only way SAS will ever go into Brooklyn via Downtown is if it connects with the Nassau St line somewhere north of Fulton St, since I strongly doubt another tunnel will be built between Brooklyn and Manhattan. As a side note, I can't imagine Phase 4 will ever be built as currently proposed, since it offers very little utility for the cost.

 

The issue with Chrystie St is that it is not wide enough for construction of a four-track station; based on the engineering studies they did, construction of a same-level subway stop, besides all the shutdowns it would entail, would also require digging up the park adjacent to Chrystie St. Given that this is the biggest green space in the immediate area, digging it up is a no-go.

 

Hanover Sq is planned to be deep, and the tail tracks are planned to dive under all the existing tunnels. Clearing the East River should not be a problem.

[Fresh Pond]

I actually don't think Grand St station itself will need to be closed - Lex / 63 station has remained open during the SAS construction. The issue is that building SAS at the same level as the 6 Av express tracks will require cut-and-cover, causing a situation similar to the 1960s where 7 blocks of Chrystie St were completely shut down for 2 years.

 

Of course, with enough compensation, the locals might acquiesce?

Lex-63 was built as an island station from the jump, with plans for extensions already in mind. Grand St wasn't.

[RailRunRob]

The issue with Chrystie St is that it is not wide enough for construction of a four-track station; based on the engineering studies they did, construction of a same-level subway stop, besides all the shutdowns it would entail, would also require digging up the park adjacent to Chrystie St. Given that this is the biggest green space in the immediate area, digging it up is a no-go.

 

Hanover Sq is planned to be deep, and the tail tracks are planned to dive under all the existing tunnels. Clearing the East River should not be a problem.

Umm interesting never saw this that's at least 75-80 feet. I was wondering if that area could support a deep station answered!!. At that depth you could clear the Riverbed without any grade on the Manhattan side.